Jayne Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,803 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,779 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2019 17 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Science is not about truth. Science is about facts. “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re looking for, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”–Indiana Jones Regarding your question, you'll have to take it up with God. And if personal experiences have no value to you, I suppose we are done here. You are right. Science is about observable and provable factual information. Truth is about the meaning or interpretation of facts - facts which can include scientific ones, mathematical ones, philosophical ones, Biblical ones, and experiential ones. Truth is much broader than facts and can supersede facts as facts can and do change. I loved teaching science as well as other subjects to junior high and high school students over the years. One thing I taught is that good science self-regulates. The "facts" change. It once was a scientific "fact" that our universe was static. Even the great Einstein whom I admire was wrong. The "fact" is now different - our universe is dynamic and really, how could we have ever thought otherwise? Did we just believe Einstein because he was Einstein? It used to be a scientific fact that life spontaneous "combusted". This was held by many of the brightest minds for centuries - Aristotle even. We now know differently. Everyone jumped on the cold fusion bandwagon in the late 1980's until in when others tried to repeat the scientific process that "proved it" - could not. I was taught in the 1960's by my science teachers that dinosaurs were slow, dragged their tails, cold-blooded, slow-thinkers, and had no color variations. We now know differently and it's not due to Jurassic Park. And the list continues.... Science self-corrects. And I still love science. In fact, I love it - in part - for that very reason. I'm convinced....one day, science will self-regulate it's "facts" about evolution. There will come a day that the world says, "How could we have believed that?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Jayne said: It once was a scientific "fact" that our universe was static. Even the great Einstein whom I admire was wrong. The "fact" is now different - our universe is dynamic and really, how could we have ever thought otherwise? Did we just believe Einstein because he was Einstein? More progress in science proved it wrong 32 minutes ago, Jayne said: It used to be a scientific fact that life spontaneous "combusted". This was held by many of the brightest minds for centuries - Aristotle even. We now know differently. More progress in science proved it wrong 32 minutes ago, Jayne said: Everyone jumped on the cold fusion bandwagon in the late 1980's until in when others tried to repeat the scientific process that "proved it" - could not. Cold fusion was a hoax for everyone that understood science but even if noone understood it, more progress in science would proof that cold fusion is ineficient. I have a farnsworth reactor and its basically just a big lightbulb that can cause cancer. 32 minutes ago, Jayne said: I was taught in the 1960's by my science teachers that dinosaurs were slow, dragged their tails, cold-blooded, slow-thinkers, and had no color variations. We now know differently and it's not due to Jurassic Park. More progress in science proved it wrong 32 minutes ago, Jayne said: Science self-corrects. And I still love science. In fact, I love it - in part - for that very reason. I'm convinced....one day, science will self-regulate it's "facts" about evolution. There will come a day that the world says, "How could we have believed that?" Are you also convinced that it will be proven one day, that the earth is not round or that the sun orbits around us? We have to be realistic. Evolution has as much evidence as the shape of our earth or the movement of our heavenly bodies. Denying evolution is like rejecting reality. You can try to proof it wrong and everyone is welcommed to do so, and everyone would accept that evolution is false, IF It was proven to be wrong. However, as we stand now and given our current information, it would be silly to reject evolution. Its the backbone of many scientific fields like medicine, genetics or biology, it gives incredibly good results and it has extremly good evidence Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2019 26 minutes ago, Jayne said: You are right. Science is about observable and provable factual information. Truth is about the meaning or interpretation of facts - facts which can include scientific ones, mathematical ones, philosophical ones, Biblical ones, and experiential ones. Truth is much broader than facts and can supersede facts as facts can and do change. I loved teaching science as well as other subjects to junior high and high school students over the years. One thing I taught is that good science self-regulates. The "facts" change. It once was a scientific "fact" that our universe was static. Even the great Einstein whom I admire was wrong. The "fact" is now different - our universe is dynamic and really, how could we have ever thought otherwise? Did we just believe Einstein because he was Einstein? It used to be a scientific fact that life spontaneous "combusted". This was held by many of the brightest minds for centuries - Aristotle even. We now know differently. Everyone jumped on the cold fusion bandwagon in the late 1980's until in when others tried to repeat the scientific process that "proved it" - could not. I was taught in the 1960's by my science teachers that dinosaurs were slow, dragged their tails, cold-blooded, slow-thinkers, and had no color variations. We now know differently and it's not due to Jurassic Park. And the list continues.... Science self-corrects. And I still love science. In fact, I love it - in part - for that very reason. I'm convinced....one day, science will self-regulate it's "facts" about evolution. There will come a day that the world says, "How could we have believed that?" Wow. We are in complete agreement on all of that stuff. I'm in my 60's and have always been fascinated by the sciences in general. I've witnessed way too much revision in what we "know" that I see it all as either theory or hypothesis. People forget that even the theory of gravity is, in fact, a theory. And a strong case can be made for it pushing rather than pulling. It's a fascinating mental exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Wow. We are in complete agreement on all of that stuff. I'm in my 60's and have always been fascinated by the sciences in general. I've witnessed way too much revision in what we "know" that I see it all as either theory or hypothesis. People forget that even the theory of gravity is, in fact, a theory. And a strong case can be made for it pushing rather than pulling. It's a fascinating mental exercise. Why is it worth mentioning that the theory of gravity is a theory? Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Leyla said: Why is it worth mentioning that the theory of gravity is a theory? It was a joke. The joke is that it is called a theory, but people forget that. It's a theory because we don't know how it works. We only theorize how it works. And to be a theory, it must be testable. And the problem is that all of the tests I'm aware of can be explained by either it pushing or pulling. It's just an interesting scientific example. And I read an article in scientific american back in the early 90's about DNA. One of the researchers focused on unravelling it at the time was quoted as saying something I'll never forget, considering where it was published: "The more we know about it, the more it looks like someone designed it." I'm in IT and I liken DNA to a ridiculously complex computer program that can be modified in function based on input parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Still Alive said: It was a joke. The joke is that it is called a theory, but people forget that. It's a theory because we don't know how it works. We only theorize how it works. And to be a theory, it must be testable. And the problem is that all of the tests I'm aware of can be explained by either it pushing or pulling. It's just an interesting scientific example. We dont call things theory because we dont know it enough that would be a hypothesis. We observed a natural fact, that things fall on the ground and we called this observed natural fact gravity. We made the theory of gravity, to describe this natural observation. A theory is something that describes a concept. The theory of gravity is that objects with mass attract to another with a force that is directely proportial to their masses and inversily proportial to the square distance between them. A law usually describes a pattern and is usually a formula for example Fg = (Gm1+ m2) / r². Thats the standard I think Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leyla Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 162 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/24/1997 Share Posted May 9, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Still Alive said: "The more we know about it, the more it looks like someone designed it." I'm in IT and I liken DNA to a ridiculously complex computer program that can be modified in function based on input parameters. DNA consists of a sugar, a phospate group and one out of 4 bases. Is it really that complex? The whole human genom fits on a 750 MB disc. The operating system on your computer has more information than DNA. How does it point to a designer? Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Leyla said: We dont call things theory because we dont know it enough that would be a hypothesis. We observed a natural fact, that things fall on the ground and we called this observed natural fact gravity. We made the theory of gravity, to describe this natural observation. A theory is something that describes a concept. The theory of gravity is that objects with mass attract to another with a force that is directely proportial to their masses and inversily proportial to the square distance between them. A law usually describes a pattern and is usually a formula for example Fg = (Gm1+ m2) / r². Thats the standard I think Yeah, I get that. I was trying to keep it high level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Leyla said: DNA consists of a sugar, a phospate group and one out of 4 bases. Is it really that complex? The whole human genom fits on a 750 MB disc. The operating system on your computer has more information than DNA. How does it point to a designer? I do a lot of technical writing. What makes a good article is one that explains the complex in simple terms. What makes DNA so special is that it is so simple, yet so mindbogglingly efficient in its capabilities. I also think you underestimate it's complexity. If it is so simple, why don't we whip up a batch from scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted May 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,803 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,779 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2019 57 minutes ago, Leyla said: More progress in science proved it wrong Are you also convinced that it will be proven one day, that the earth is not round or that the sun orbits around us? We have to be realistic. Evolution has as much evidence as the shape of our earth or the movement of our heavenly bodies. Denying evolution is like rejecting reality. You can try to proof it wrong and everyone is welcommed to do so, and everyone would accept that evolution is false, IF It was proven to be wrong. However, as we stand now and given our current information, it would be silly to reject evolution. Its the backbone of many scientific fields like medicine, genetics or biology, it gives incredibly good results and it has extremly good evidence Your repetition of "more science proved it wrong" is exactly my point. People once taught, believed, trusted in, and promoted the WRONG things. Ridiculous things. Good science corrects that. That's why good science is so very necessary. You proved my point. Absolute truth is always absolute truth. Even if facts, like scientific facts, change. Denying evolution is like rejecting reality? It is the backbone of fields like medicine? It gives incredibly good results and it has extremely good evidence? I should like to see that evidence, Leyla. There are some who desperately want evolution to be a self-evident axiom, but even Darwin said there were no missing links in the stratum of the earth where he thought there should be and many other scientists who are not Christians hesitantly say the same thing. But there's a reason why, with no proof, the theory of evolution is brandished about so aggressively. It takes God out of the equation. It says "There is no God since there was never a need for one in the evolution of life." But here's the problem with evolution - besides no evidence. Where is the first life come from? Where did that first cell come from? That first sugar. That first phosphate. Etc..... The origins of it all is what stops evolution dead in its tracks. You know why those who believe in it can't find the origin of it all? Hebrews 11:3 gives the answer. "By faith, we understand that the universe was formed as God's command so that what is seen was not made from the visible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts